1、1 No. 04-368.Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS22169June 20, 2005Jury Instructions: Arthur Andersen LLP v.United Statesname redactedLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryOn May 31, 2005, the United States S
2、upreme Court issued its decision in ArthurAndersen LLP v. United States, a case concerning disputed jury instructions as to themeaning of a “corrupt persuasion” conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 1512(b). Thecase was appealed from the Fifth Circuit, which had held that jury instructions issuedby the
3、 District Court accurately conveyed the meaning of the statutory terms “corruptlypersuades” and “official proceeding” and that the jury did not need to find anyconsciousness of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the term atissue could apply only to persons conscious of wrongdoing a
4、nd that there must be anexus between the action and the particular proceeding.On May 31, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in ArthurAndersen LLP v. United States,1 a case concerning disputed jury instructions as to themeaning of a “corrupt persuasion” conviction under 18 U.S.
